SBC Ref

10-72 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS (SI)
10.6.3.1.3 Semiempirical Procedures C10.6.3.1.3
The nominal bearing resistance of foundation soils In application of these empirical methods, the use of
may be estimated from the results of in-situ tests or by average SPT blow counts and CPT tip resistances is
observed resistance of similar soils. The use of a specified. The resistance factors recommended for
particular in-situ test and the interpretation of test results bearing resistance included in Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 assume
should take local experience into consideration. The the use of average values for these parameters. The use
following in-situ tests may be used: of lower bound values may result in an overly
conservative design. However, depending on the
Standard Penetration Test availability of soil property data and the variability of
the geologic strata under consideration, it may not be
Cone Penetration Test possible to reliably estimate the average value of the
properties needed for design. In such cases, the Engineer
The nominal bearing resistance in sand, in MPa, may have no choice but to use a more conservative
based on SPT results may be taken as: selection of design input parameters to mitigate the
additional risks created by potential variability or the
Df paucity of relevant data.
qn 3.2 10 5
N 160 B Cwq Cw (10.6.3.1.3-1) The original derivation of Eqs. 1 and 2 did not
B include inclination factors (Meyerhof, 1956).
where:
N 160 = average SPT blow count corrected for both

overburden and hammer efficiency effects
(blows/300 mm) as specified in
Article 10.4.6.2.4. Average the blow count
over a depth range from the bottom of the
footing to 1.5B below the bottom of the
footing.
B = footing width (mm)
Cwq, Cw = correction factors to account for the

location of the groundwater table as
specified in Table 10.6.3.1.2a-2 (dim.)
Df = footing embedment depth taken to the

bottom of the footing (mm)
The nominal bearing resistance, in MPa, for

footings on cohesionless soils based on CPT results may
be taken as:
Df
qn 8.2 10 5
qc B Cwq Cw (10.6.3.1.3-2)
B
where:
qc = average cone tip resistance within a depth

range B below the bottom of the footing
(MPa)
B = footing width (mm)
© 2007 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
SECTION 10 (SI): FOUNDATIONS 10-49
Figure 10.6.2.4.1-1 Boussinesq Vertical Stress Contours

for Continuous and Square Footings Modified after Sowers
(1979).
10.6.2.4.2 Settlement of Footings on Cohesionless C10.6.2.4.2

Soils
Although methods are recommended for the
The settlement of spread footings bearing on determination of settlement of cohesionless soils,
cohesionless soil deposits shall be estimated as a experience has indicated that settlements can vary
function of effective footing width and shall consider the considerably in a construction site, and this variation
effects of footing geometry and soil and rock layering may not be predicted by conventional calculations.
with depth. Settlements of cohesionless soils occur rapidly,
essentially as soon as the foundation is loaded.
Therefore, the total settlement under the service loads
may not be as important as the incremental settlement
between intermediate load stages. For example, the total
and differential settlement due to loads applied by
columns and cross beams is generally less important
than the total and differential settlements due to girder
placement and casting of continuous concrete decks.
Settlements of footings on cohesionless soils shall Generally conservative settlement estimates may be
be estimated using elastic theory or empirical obtained using the elastic half-space procedure or the
procedures. empirical method by Hough. Additional information
regarding the accuracy of the methods described herein
is provided in Gifford et al. (1987) and Kimmerling
(2002). This information, in combination with local
experience and engineering judgment, should be used
when determining the estimated settlement for a
structure foundation, as there may be cases, such as
attempting to build a structure grade high to account for
the estimated settlement, when overestimating the
settlement magnitude could be problematic.
Details of other procedures can be found in
textbooks and engineering manuals, including:

10-50 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS (SI)
Terzaghi and Peck, 1967
Sowers, 1979
U.S. Department of the Navy, 1982
D’Appolonia (Gifford et al., 1987)—This

method includes consideration for over-
consolidated sands.
Tomlinson (1986)
Gifford et al. (1987)
The elastic half-space method assumes the footing For general guidance regarding the estimation of
is flexible and is supported on a homogeneous soil of elastic settlement of footings on sand, see Gifford et al.
infinite depth. The elastic settlement of spread footings, (1987) and Kimmerling (2002).
in mm, by the elastic half-space method shall be The stress distributions used to calculate elastic
estimated as: settlement assume the footing is flexible and supported
on a homogeneous soil of infinite depth. The settlement
2 below a flexible footing varies from a maximum near
qO 1 A the center to a minimum at the edge equal to about
S (10.6.2.4.2-1) 50 percent and 64 percent of the maximum for
e E
s z rectangular and circular footings, respectively. The
settlement profile for rigid footings is assumed to be
where: uniform across the width of the footing.
Spread footings of the dimensions normally used
qo = applied vertical stress (MPa) for bridges are generally assumed to be rigid, although
the actual performance will be somewhere between
A = effective area of footing (mm2) perfectly rigid and perfectly flexible, even for relatively
thick concrete footings, due to stress redistribution and
Es = Young’s modulus of soil taken as specified in concrete creep.
Article 10.4.6.3 if direct measurements of Es The accuracy of settlement estimates using elastic
are not available from the results of in situ or theory are strongly affected by the selection of soil
laboratory tests (MPa) modulus and the inherent assumptions of infinite elastic
half space. Accurate estimates of soil moduli are
= shape factor taken as specified in Table 1 difficult to obtain because the analyses are based on
z
(dim.) only a single value of soil modulus, and Young’s
modulus varies with depth as a function of overburden
stress. Therefore, in selecting an appropriate value for
= Poisson’s Ratio, taken as specified in
soil modulus, consideration should be given to the
Article 10.4.6.3 if direct measurements of are influence of soil layering, bedrock at a shallow depth,
not available from the results of in situ or and adjacent footings.
laboratory tests (dim.) For footings with eccentric loads, the area, A ,
should be computed based on reduced footing
Unless Es varies significantly with depth, Es should dimensions as specified in Article 10.6.1.3.
be determined at a depth of about 1/2 to 2/3 of B below
the footing, where B is the footing width. If the soil
modulus varies significantly with depth, a weighted
average value of Es should be used.


SBC Ref

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SBC Ref

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SBC Ref

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10-72 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS (SI)

10.6.3.1.3 Semiempirical Procedures C10.6.3.1.3

N 160 = average SPT blow count corrected for both

B = footing width (mm)

Cwq, Cw = correction factors to account for the

Df = footing embedment depth taken to the

The nominal bearing resistance, in MPa, for

qc = average cone tip resistance within a depth

B = footing width (mm)

© 2007 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Figure 10.6.2.4.1-1 Boussinesq Vertical Stress Contours

10.6.2.4.2 Settlement of Footings on Cohesionless C10.6.2.4.2

© 2007 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Terzaghi and Peck, 1967

U.S. Department of the Navy, 1982

D’Appolonia (Gifford et al., 1987)—This

Gifford et al. (1987)

© 2007 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

You might also like